| Author | Message | ||
     Alfred |
David: I just finished your biography of the Go-Betweens. Thanks to your scrupulous research and intrinsic understanding of what powers the Go-Be's best albums, the book is a delight. The sketch of Brisbane in the mid '70s, as the punk winds blew through London in New York, is devastating. One of the more subtle ironies in your account is that Grant and Robert, disgusted by the musical status quo in Brisbane, were equally intransigent about their own influences; even to this day they still cite Jonathan Richman, "Marquee Moon," the Monkees, etc. Your interviews with Lindy Morrison fascinated me. I had no idea that such antipathy existed b/w her and Grant; and your analysis showed how her inimitable drumming accelerated the band's maturation at least as much as Grant's songwriting inspired Robert. Having said that, I missed any discussion of the Grant-Robert frienship, obviously the most important element in the Go-Be's greatness. Both men are notably tight-lipped on the subject - understandably so, since most guys prefer to let behaviour adduce personality. But other than your account of the Grant-Robert-Lindy tensions during the "Lullaby" days and Grant's telling remark last year that he and Robert don't frequent the same clubs, there's really no analysis of how the deep, mysterious, infuriating, and ultimately sui generis relationship b/w these two men empowered (god, I hate that word) their songwriting. Arguably the tensions b/w them were and are more fruitful than the fallout of the Amanda-Lindy relationships. "PLatonic homosexuality" is how Grant once described their bond, a telling phrase. I guess what I'm asking is: what makes them tick? We know from songs like "As Long As That," "Spirit," and "Too Much of One Thing" that they're aware of how one needs the other in ways too primal for strangers to explain; they remind me of Mick and Keith, except Grant and Robert seem like better human beings and more fascinating people. I wanted quotes from Lindy, Amanda, Willsteed, Vickers, etc - their takes on the Robert-Grant bond - as well your views on the subject. Reading your wonderful book made me even more curious. | ||
| Cassiel |
You've hit upon something there, Alfred. The book is brilliant, but it does not explain why two grown men, obviously of very different personalities, split up a band and then spent the next decade doing everything but reforming before eventually reforming. Is it a case of having to work with the other by necessity, because what you do on your own is only half as good, half as popular? Or actually wanting to work together; that there is some sort of bond that doesn't exist elsewhere; a relationship that brings out the best in the both of them. Mick and Keith are the former I reckon; there doesn't seem to be much warmth there. But with Grant and Robert there does. This might not mean anything, but I saw them playing a private gig in London before BYBO, and afterwards, Robert came out to work the audience, see old friends, while Grant disappeared. Robert, from what I know, and from the book, seems a straight up kind of guy, witty, wry and open; while Grant seems a bit, well, enigmatic. David makes reference to his famous lack of charm, his prickliness, self-importance, and then there's the drug thing. It's probably just me, but I cannot square that with the heart-on-sleeve, unashamedly romantic guy who wrote 'Bye Bye Pride', one of the five best love songs ever written. In the criticism vein, there are a few too many disparaging remarks in the book about London for my liking; the sort of whinge you hear over here from countless Australians, which instantly makes you think, 'Well piss off home then.' Other than that, and that irritating Mr Pierre bloke that bobs up like an unflushed turd, it's great piece of work. | ||
| Randy Adams |
I found it interesting that Robert seldom writes until he has to. No wonder he wasn't very prolific in his solo years. Grant wasn't there to push him to come up with something for the next release. On this point, I'd say he needs Grant more than the reverse. The Grant/Robert relationship reminds me of my relationship with my best friend in the years spanning from about 15 to about 22. We lived in a mediocre, isolated mid-size town. We couldn't get into the conventional interests that kids were into--we were geeks. I turned him onto the Hollies, the Rolling Stones and the Yardbirds. Once he got into that, he went deeper and paid me back by turning me onto Captain Beefheart and Scott Walker. And, yes, later there were Jonathan Richman, Hawkwind (we always had a bit of tongue in cheek when listening to them) and the Flamin' Groovies. We were the only people we knew with our musical tastes. It was us against the world. That relationship eventually made me claustrophobic, but I miss it sometimes. My guess is that Robert and Grant have learned how to integrate that type of relationship into adulthood. Of course they don't go to the same clubs; it'd just be too much now. After all Robert has a family and has even gone so bourgeois as to buy a house. Is Grant still single? | ||
| JohnD |
I think one of the major factors in getting back together was that their respective solo carriers had come to a halt and I mean that in the best possible sense. I do believe that the natural environment for grant and robert is as a duo -ala lennon and macca of beatles fame -while they had moments of solo brilliance they never came close to when they where in a band together -Daves book indicates that both Grant and Robert has been dropped by their label as solo artists before the GB reunion -they have to eat so going back to the GB brandname makes sense from a $$$ point of view -but also from an artistic one too-I think the records released to date prove they are still a viable force in music and have a lot more to offer -this encarnation is the best live unit I have seen the GBs in by a long shot-so they have come back together probably for a mix of $$ and artistic reasons -as Daves book states robert go his first house on the back of the reunion and the money he made and who can begrudge him for that -I think they probably make more money and sell more records now then when they where going in the last encarnation before the split and good luck to them with it is my view -as long as we keep getting albums as good as BYBO and the rest I am willing to part with my hard earned cash for the music and even for re buying the original albums when they have/will been re released for old and new fans alike..now they just have to get it together for a DVD and Robert and Grant can build extensions on to their respective homes :-) | ||
| Alfred |
Robert and Grant reassembled the Go-Betweens because both realized that, to quote "Spirit," they are "one thing greater than all the things you are together." As we all know their first split in 1990 was amicable; they played together numerous times throughout the decade. Which brings back my question: how many breakups of great bands were as amicable between the principals as the Go-Be's? Robert and Grant's friendship and deep artistic affinities surely had something to do with it, and this is the territory David's book leaves unexplored. I wanted a critic to posit a theory about what keeps/kept these two men so close for so many years. | ||
| Randy Adams |
The Zombies. Their breakup was totally amicable and for the identical reason as the GoBs' breakup, except that they didn't even have music critics to support them as they largely predated the era of serious criticism of "pop" music. Former Zombies members continue to work on each others records to this day. They apparently even have a new reunion album, which is supposed to be steaming its way toward me. Some people get lucky and meet honest-to-God fellow travelers. I do think the comparison with Jagger and Richards is a good one. Btw, I don't really think that Jagger & Richards are less interesting. Have you ever read any Keith Richards interviews? He's a great favorite music wonk. What made Jagger & Richards descend into banality was the same thing that would have done it to Forster & McLennan: huge grotesque commercial success in which your poops are ooo'd and aahhh'd over. But that's for the "Fear of Success" thread. | ||
| Alfred |
Randy: Keith's interviews are a hoot! One of the more forthright characters in rock, definitely (his intelligence is after all those years still underrated, as if being a party animal and a fan of Gibbon's Decline of the Roman Empire are mutually exclusive). The differences between him and the patronizing, evasive Jagger are never more apparent than when you read the press interviews unleashed when they release Steel Wheels Part VII every six years. Btw I'm still waiting for David to answer. I'd love to get his response to all our theories | ||
| david nichols |
Alfred and others, thank you for the question, I'm surprised you think I didn't answer it in the book before you even asked it - I would have thought the GMcL-RF relationship was on practically every page, and not always reading between the lines either. Just think about the first few chapters - the late 70s ZZZ interviews, for instance. There's obviously chemistry there. The Gobs' 'amicable' 1989 breakup - apart from anything else, many people suggest that all GMcL and RF were doing was returning to the original duo, but because of other personal relationships in and around the group this became untenable. And GMcL wanted to be a pop star and RF wanted to be an indie rock star, and Lindy had a claim to the GoBs name and they didn't want to work with her. So there are various good reasons why the band split up, on top of the usual mid-life crisis ones. The reunion - might have been a financial decision, almost certainly was, in fact, in a manner of speaking but additionally was a kind of artistic one (you could argue that the creation of FOC - for instance - was similarly a 'financial' decision, too!). Anyway, I am happy for this criticism and next time I can bear to flick through the book I will try and think this through, see if I agree. Which is not to say that if I don't agree, you're wrong. And I'm happy that the book provoked you into this line of thinking. They are all good questions. | ||
| Alfred |
Thanks for responding, David. I love how we can all have a civil, intelligent dialogue about a band whose catalogue can support it. | ||
| Padraig Collins |
Alfred, I agree with David. The chemistry between Robert and Grant jumps off the pages, and I'm only about 1/3 the way through. What strikes me most about the book so far though is the superb contextualisation. The way David sets the scence of the times, politically, socially and artistically, is an absolute joy to read. It reminds me of the Brisbane / Queensland novels of Andrew McGahan (well worth checking out for anyone of you who want more background on what made Brisbane tick in the late 70s, early 80s). I just bought his new book on Saturday as it happens, and will read it after I finish Davids. Thanks for writing a book with a far greater sweep than rock n' roll David. | ||
| Alfred |
Well, yes, David's take on the chemistry is admirably understated - maybe TOO understated. A biography doesn't work like a Go-Betweens song, with tacit conclusions and nuances that bloom after repeated thumbings; you need a lot of reporting, and direct quotes from sources. Please don't misunderstand me: the book was startlingly vivid, honoring the complexity of the subjects (rather like how a Go-Be's song addresses the complications of love without patronizing). But I wanted Grant and Robert's relationship fleshed out by quotes from Vickers, Lindy, Amanda, old Brisbane acquaintances. What's their take on this 30 year relationship? This is the only area in which David's printed account lacked the diligence he showed in the early chapters on Brisbane, the tensiosn b/w Grant, Robert, and Lindy, and their record company travails. By the way, this is one of those times when I wish we were all in a pub, exchanging these thoughts over pints. | ||
| david nichols |
Andrew McGahan is a very interesting and worthwhile writer. The new novel sounds great, nothing like the previous two. While we're talking Brisbane contextualisation I can't wait to read Andrew Stafford's forthcoming Pig City - on Brisbane punk and politics etc in the last quarter of the 20th century. And also, if we're talking Australia generally it appears that Verse Chorus Press, who publish my book, are also looking at reissuing Clinton Walker's Inner City Sound - the overview from 1980-81 of the Australian new wave scene. | ||
| Padraig Collins |
David, Andrew McGahan has had three previous novels before the new one. Are you forgetting Last Drinks, which was not-all-that-loosley based on the Bjelke-Petersen government. I didn't like this as much as the first two. It sort of came off as a great idea which didn't quite work. Still worth reading though, and obviously it did not put me off getting his fourth novel (whose name I can't think of right now). | ||
| John |
"White Earth". I have fond memories of being a uni student in Brisbane in the early '90s and seemingly continually re-reading Praise. 1988 was good, but was a little too obvious in repeating the formula. McGahan seemed to lack courage to try something different. I thought Last Drinks was an interesting step away from the character Gordon Buchanan. I can't remember much detail, but I thought it was very well done. | ||
| steve connell |
I'd love to hear more about the new Andrew McGahan novel. I'm pretty sure his first 2 books came out in reverse order in the USA -- there wasn't the big hoopla over "Praise" that there had been in Australia. So I read "1988" first, and perhaps for that reason didn't have the reaction John did -- I liked it more than "Praise." "Last Drinks" wasn't published here at all, which is a shame -- I thought it was had a great narrative pull. So someone please tell me something about the new one (theme, location) Thanks Steve | ||
| Padraig Collins |
Steve, the Sydney Morning Herald's review of it is at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/30/1083224570713.html | ||
| steve connell |
Thanks for this link, Padraig. And I found an interview with AM at http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/index.html. By a weird coincidence, there's also a profile of Sophie Cunningham, author of "Geography" but also the person at Allen & Unwin who was at least partly responsible for the publication of the original edition of David's book. | ||
| david nichols |
I missed Last Drinks completely. I see it is mentioned in The Age article that Steve cites, which I thought I'd read properly. There you go. Gerard Lee's True Love and How to Get It is a great piece of 70s Brisbania which I greatly enjoyed. If we're talking counterculturish impressionistic 70s/80s Qld fiction... which I think we are. Lee was the first GoBs drummer, for one night only. He went on to direct the film All Men Are Liars... which had its moments. | ||
| Pete Azzopardi |
Is that the one with Toni Pearon? I saw that. Actually, I read a Gerard Lee book after you mentioned him in the first edition of your book, David - something with "Glass" in the title I think - and in one chapter a character mentions they were going to the Curry shop to see a Go-Bs gig. Not a bad book - kinda reminded me of "Puberty Blues". | ||
| andrew stafford |
David, thanks for the mention. Since you've broken the news I'll fill in a few gaps, most of which (happily) link up with much of the previous discussion. Pig City: From the Saints to Savage Garden will be published in October by University of Queensland Press. Obviously the Go-Betweens play a prominent, but not overwhelming, part of the story. It's certainly not only a music book. The music takes the foreground and gives shape to the city's social, cultural and political history. Really, it's the story of Brisbane and how it grew up, pre- and post Bjelke-Petersen and Fitzgerald Inquiry. Although I came up with the idea before reading it, I was hugely inspired by Last Drinks and in fact have quoted from it a few times. David, surprised you haven't read it. Leagues beyond Praise (which I liked) - mixture of historical fiction, political thriller and murder mystery/whodunit. It's great stuff. I won't toot my own horn further for now. As I said, it's out in October, and I guess you can be the judge then! | ||
| david nichols |
Brisbane is such a great city. I imagine that if I had been born and grew up there at the time I really was born and grew up (60s,70s) I would probably have the same grim attitude to it as many people I know who fled it in early adulthood. My first visit there was probably '84 or thereabouts on a weekend many Brisbaneites would remember - the huge hailstorm which smashed louvres across town and gave every uncovered car pock-marked roofs - I suppose some of those cars are still being driven around Brisbane, one will probably end up in a museum! Anyway, my first taste of Brisbane culture came via a party somewhere in the Valley and a tour of the record shops and a trip to the (at that time, derilect) Saints' 'Club 77'... I've always enjoyed my trips there since, it's an amazing town. |